Our Views: Learning from Louisiana recovery

As residents of the East Coast attempt to rebuild after the destruction of Hurricane Sandy, many of them will look toward New Orleans for lessons in storm recovery. The Crescent City’s experience in rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina — a process that’s still in progress — already is being used by recovery experts plotting the East Coast’s rebound from Sandy.

That relationship was affirmed in a recent opinion column on the New Orleans recovery by New York Times writer Joe Nocera. The biggest lesson that Nocera gleaned from his recent visit to New Orleans is that in spite of large institutional support for recovery efforts, many of the most-important elements of the post-Katrina recovery effort have happened at the grass-roots level, without help from the bureaucracy.

Nocera interviewed Roberta Gratz, a writer who has owned a house in New Orleans since 2007, and is writing a book about the Crescent City’s recovery efforts.

Gratz pointed to Magazine Street, the celebrated New Orleans shopping venue, as an example of recovery done from the bottom up.

“This is one of the longest shopping streets in the country,” she told Nocera. “There are residential and commercial buildings, and local stores and chain stores. Very little was done for streets like this because the big money went to the tourism districts. This grew back organically.”

The point isn’t that federal assistance for massive disasters isn’t necessary. That support has — and will continue to be — a large part of recovery efforts after national disasters. But at the neighborhood level, nongovernmental recovery advocates can often respond more easily and quickly than large institutions.

“Despite the billions of dollars appropriated for Sandy recovery, would the rebuilding be as ad hoc, and as volunteer-dependent, as the initial emergency phase?” Nocera asked. “If New Orleans is any indication, the answer is yes.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (14)


1) Comment by old yat - 11/03/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

2) Comment by bourbon-soda - 08/03/2013

Back to the editorial: inducing people to move back to NO after Katrina was and is idiotic.

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 08/03/2013

@prb - good comments. Specifically: 1) "Insurance" as purchasing agent for routine and expected expenses, alters the meaning of "insurance." 2) I think "whole life" insurance is an artifact of the tax system. The eventual payout is worth something, and if you get to the point where the policy is self- sustaining, then you are not paying taxes on the yield of the invested money. 3) If I could find a way to buy personal liability insurance without homeowner's and auto insurance, I would not have either, so that seems to be be some kind of artifact, too. 4) Most premature morbidity and mortality in the US and like countries, results from personal choices rather than the health care system, as implicit in AP story on similarity of British and US longevity despite differences in govt. subsidy, which may make it worse by creating "moral hazard" (a quaint old insurance term) when someone else has financial responsibility for one's actions - like building a beach house in hurricane alley, driving drunk, acting out a taste for sugar, salt, and fat.

4) Comment by prbeav - 07/03/2013

sorry. "ma" should be "man"

5) Comment by prbeav - 07/03/2013

Sometimes leaving the www. off helps. I see your point, and it is very generous of you to show the url; maybe list it second.>>>>Insurance is so important. When I was a college student, I tried to reject whole life insurance, because it looked expensive. Dad insisted that I not insult-- trust--his insurance ma of thirty years, so I bought it. When I became a father, some eight years into the policy, I sold it and bought five years salary in term life insurance from a different company. The whole-life company handed me the small ckeck and said, with my wife present, "You are making the worst mistake of your married life." I responded, "Thank you very much. Now get out of my house.">>>>My homeowner's bill is incredible, but I cannot do without it.>>>>The nation should pay for competitive, catastrophic health insurance for all 330 million of us then leave our day to day health care, including abortion and birth control and vasectomies and knee replacements and hip replacements, as our total responsibility. I eat sensibly (lintels in place of steak, for example) and do one hour of yoga six days a week and 20 minutes at 80% maximum heart rate 3 times a week to keep myself out from under the knife.

6) Comment by bourbon-soda - 07/03/2013

Thanks; I don't know what happens to the urls. They at least tell which hit to go to when the phrase works. I'll try to work out a more succinct way. Part of the cost of living somewhere is buying insurance, IMO.

7) Comment by prbeav - 07/03/2013

bourbon-soda, both of your references speak to me of the need to reduce government interference in risk decisions. I recall a photo in the Advocate with houses opposite each other on a street. One neighbor was mowing his lawn and the other was pumping water out of his home. Flood insurance does not compensate for the loss of life the water-pumper was suffering. Also, I recall working with a fellow who took a week's vacation most years to recover from home flooding. He explained his tolerance with, "My lot was real cheap and flood insurance covers the loss." However, each of us has about 60 years of adult life, and living it without government-sponsored interruptions is the better choice.>>>>When you consider our current deficit expansion and hopes for reversal, government bailouts make even less sense.>>>>From my end, your URLs seldom work, but your google phrase never fails, so save time by omitting the URLs (if you like the feedback).

8) Comment by bourbon-soda - 07/03/2013

Here is a good read on why the government should not help disaster victims too much: << http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2005/09/no _relief.html >> or search "steven lansburg slate katrina" and select the corresponding hit; also << http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-06-05/uncle-sam-up- to-his-neck-in-the-risk-pool >> found by searching "risk pool insurer of last resort businessweek." Is there a plan in place to evacuate all those attracted back by "Road Home" and other irrational boondoggles?

9) Comment by agagent - 07/03/2013

The federal flood insurance program has unintended consequences: It takes the financial risks from property owners building in a flood-prone area and encourages some to take more risks. The costs of the program far exceeded the estimate and the federal government covered the losses of many who refused flood insurance. It reminds me of how the federal government, through Fannie and Freddie, helped create trillions of dollars in bad mortgages. Now we have another bubble of about trillion dollars of college loans, which the federal government helped to create.

10) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 07/03/2013

Natural disasters have been a factor of life forever; before FEMA people rebuilt their lives and properties for a myriad of reasons having to do with themselves, and so it was more quickly done. Alleviating pain and suffering, making loans more available, and offering humanitarian aid is an admirable, but we've moved past that to people now expecting to be taken care of forever because they suffered through a disaster.

11) Comment by agagent - 07/03/2013

Can’t help but notice that the media praised Obama’s 2-hour photo opt after Sandy, in the middle of a national campaign, yet the government’s reaction to Sandy was just as dismal as it was with Katrina. It was also ironic that the President who has added the most useless red tape says he will cut through that red tape to insure a speedy recovery.

12) Comment by tradewinns - 06/03/2013

if you live on an island in N.J. you should have flood insurance. you're surrounded by water and you're not sitting on a mountain top. insurance companies assess the risk and charge appropriately so AFTER CLAIMS they can still make a profit. if your home was destroyed by a storm and you have no flood insurance then the govt, should still help. not by replacing your home or paying off your mortgage but by offering you a relatively low interest loan so you can rebuild, IF YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL WHEREWITHALL TO PAY BACK BOTH THE LOAN AND ANY MORTGAGE YOU MAY HAVE OWED! no freebees.

13) Comment by tradewinns - 06/03/2013

i believe the govt. should step in and help it's citizens in a disaster. however it's citizens should not be able to neglect common sense and have the taxpayer step in and foot the bill for their stupidity or cheapness. if you live below sea level in N.O. you should have flood insurance

14) Comment by tradewinns - 06/03/2013

i believe the govt. should step in and help it's citizens in a disaster. however it's citizens should not be able to neglect common sense and have the taxpayer step in and foot the bill for their stupidity or cheapness. if you live below sea level in N.O. you should have flood insurance